Artículo original
Blood lactate concentration and strength performance between agonist-antagonist paired set, superset and traditional set training
Blood lactate concentration and strength performance between agonist-antagonist paired set, superset and traditional set training João A. A. A. de Souza, Gabriel A. Paz, Humberto Miranda School of Physical Education and Sports. Federal University of Rio de Janeiro. Rio de Janeiro. RJ. Brazil.
Recibido: 04.04.2016 Aceptado: 27.10.2016
Key words: Paired set. Strength. Lactate. Coactivation. Performance.
Summary Objective: To investigate acute effect of agonist-antagonist paired set (PS), superset (SS) and traditional set (TS) training on maximal repetition performance, ratings of perceived exertion (RPE) and blood lactate (BL). Material and method: Ten recreationally trained men (27.5 ± 3.8 years; 75.0 ± 5.6 kg; 176.4 ± 4.8 cm) participated in the current study. Firstly, the 8 repetition maximum (RM) loads were determined for the seated row (SR) and bench-press (BP) exercises. Then, three experimental protocols were applied: TS - 3 SR sets were performed followed by 3 BP sets; PS - 3 paired sets were performed between SR and BP exercises in alternate manner; SS - 3 paired sets were performed between SR and BP exercises without rest interval between each set paired set. Blood lactate sampling was measured prior to session (PRE); immediately post-exercise (POST); 3 min (P3), and 5 min (P5) post-exercise. Results: Greater repetition performance was noted under PS compared to SS and TS protocols for SR and BP exercises, respectively. No differences were noted between SS and TS protocols. Higher blood lactate concentrations were also noted under SS protocol compared to PS and TS, respectively, for POST, P3 e P5 measures. RPE was significantly higher under SS than PS and TS, respectively. Conclusion: Therefore, the PS may be an interesting method to be adopted in order to increase the repetition performance in acute manner for multi-joint exercises for upper body muscles, as well as, the SS method might be an alternative to increase the metabolic stress and muscle fatigue.
La concentración de lactato en sangre y rendimiento de fuerza entre series emparejadas agonista-antagonista, super series y entrenamiento tradicional Resumen
Palabras clave: Series emparejadas. Fuerza. Lactato. Coactivación. Rendimiento.
Objetivo: Investigar el efecto del entrenamiento con series emparejadas agonista-antagonista (SE), súper series (SS) y series tradicionales (ST), en el rendimiento de repeticiones máximas, la percepción subjetiva del esfuerzo (RPE) y lactato sanguíneo (L). Material y método: Diez deportistas de recreación (27.5 ± 3.8 años; 75.0 ± 5.6 kg; 176.4 ± 4.8 cm), hombres, fueron voluntariamente sometidos a este estudio. En primer lugar han sido determinadas las cargas de 8 repeticiones máximas para los ejercicios de remo sentado (RS) y press de banca (PB). Posteriormente, se aplicaron 3 protocolos: ST - 3 series de RS seguidas por 3 series de PB; SE – 3 series emparejadas entre los ejercicios RS y PB alternadamente; SS – 3 series emparejadas entre los ejercicios RS y PB sin intervalo de recuperación entre cada serie emparejadas. Muestras de L han sido medidas antes de la sesión (PRE); y inmediatamente después de la sesión (POS); 3 min (P3), y 5 min (P5) después. Resultado: Se encontró un mayor rendimiento de repeticiones en SE en comparación con SS y ST para los ejercicios RS y PB. No se observaron diferencias entre los protocolos SS y ST. Se observó una mayor concentración de lactato en el protocolo SS en comparación con SE y ST respectivamente, para las mediciones POS, P3 y P5. La RPE fue significativamente mayor en SS, en comparación con PS y TS respectivamente. Conclusión: Por consiguiente, el SE puede ser un método interesante para ser adoptado con el fin de aumentar el rendimiento de repeticiones en forma aguda para los ejercicios multi-articulares para los músculos superiores del cuerpo, como también, el método SS podría ser una alternativa para aumentar la tensión metabólica y la fatiga muscular.
Correspondencia: Gabriel Paz E-mail:
[email protected]
Arch Med Deporte 2017;34(3):145-150
145
João A. A. A. de Souza, et al.
Introduction Resistance training promotes several adaptations in musculoskeletal such as the increases in maximal strength, hypertrophy, power output, and muscular endurance for fitness and sports practitioners1. In order to optimize these adaptations, a few methodological prescription variables are often manipulated: exercise order, rest interval between sets and exercises, number of sets and exercises, muscle actions, training load and frequency2. Several training methods are used adopted by coaches and practitioners of resistance training to manipulate the methodological prescription variables with the goal to increase the outcomes3. In this sense, agonist-antagonist paired set (PS) training proposes to trigger the muscles with agonist-antagonist role (i.e. biceps and triceps brachii) in alternate manner, with or without rest interval between sets and exercises with the goal to increasing the strength performance in a time-efficient manner4. Similarly, the superset (SS) method aims to trigger the same or different muscle group or limbs, without rest interval between sets and exercises, with the goal to induce an augmentation in muscle fatigue and metabolic responses, and consequently providing an augmentation in muscle hypertrophy potential5. The PS and SS are often associated to greater training efficiency (training volume/time) when compared to traditional set (TS) training, due to the shorter rest between sets and exercises and the short recovery period between like sets4,6-8. Recently, a few studies have been observed the acute effects of PS and SS compared to TS on training volume, power output, electromyographic (EMG) activity and training efficiency (loads/min)4,6,9-15. Robbins et al.12 found similar training volume and EMG activity of pectoralis major, triceps brachial and anterior deltoid muscles between TS training and PS performing 3 sets in bench pull and bench press exercises, with 4 repetition maximum (RM) loads. The authors adopted 4-minute rest interval between sets and exercises in TS, and 2-minute between sets and exercises in PS. Recently, Maia et al.4 noted higher repetition performance and muscle activation of rectus femoris and vastus lateralis performing PS and SS (i.e. lying leg curl and leg extension), adopting shorter rest intervals (without recovery, 30 s and 1-minute) compared to longer intervals (3 and 5 minutes), as well as, compared to the leg extension performed without antagonist preloading (i.e. TS condition). However, there is still a lack of evidence about the effects of PS and SS on metabolic markers, such as, blood lactate concentration pre and post exercise , and also strength performance among training methods. Carregaro et al.13 compared the effect of three methods of antagonist prealoading: multiple sets (MS), SS and reciprocal actions (RA) investigating the effects on EMG activity (i.e. vastus lateralis, vastus medialis and rectus femoris), fatigue index, total work and blood lactate concentration performing isokinect knee flexion and knee extension. The authors observed which SS generated higher fatigue index when compared to RA and MS protocols, respectively, as well as, SS promotes significant greater blood lactate concentration after SS when comparing to RA and MS, respectively. Furthermore, there are still limited evidences about the metabolic, effort, and repetition outcomes performing PS and SS compared to TS method. These evidences may help coaches, athletes and resistance training practitioners during the prescription of training programs, with
146
the goal to increase the outcomes without compromising strength performance. Therefore, the purpose of the current study was to investigate acute effect of PS, SS and TS on maximal repetition performance, ratings of perceived exertion (RPE) and blood lactate concentration.
Material and method Participants Ten recreationally trained men (27.5 ± 3.8 years; 75.0 ± 5.6 kg; 176.4 ± 4.8 cm) participated as voluntary in the current study selected by convenience, adopting a non-probabilistic procedure. The inclusion criteria were: with a) to have at least 1 year of resistance training (RT) experience; b) to perform RT ≥ 3 times a week with an average of 1 hour per session); c) to have experience in the execution of selected exercises. The exclusion criteria were: a) to show any medical conditions which could affect the outcomes this study; b) to use nutritional supplements or other ergogenic which could induce alterations in strength and metabolic responses. The participants were instructed to do not performer any type of exercise 48h before the test or training sessions. All participants answered the Physical Activity Readiness Questionnaire and signed an informed consent form in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. The study was approved by the ethics committee of the institution with the protocol: 28037114.2.0000.5257.
Procedures Eight repetition maximum loads determination. In the week before the experiment, the 8 repetition maximum (RM) loads was determined for each participant for the wide-grip seated row (and bench-press exercises (Life Fitness, Rosemont, IL, USA). The 8RM load was defined as the maximum weight that could be lifted for 8 consecutive repetitions until concentric failure. The executions of both exercises were standardized, and pauses were not permitted between the concentric and eccentric phases. This procedure was controlled by a experienced researcher. If an 8RM was not accomplished on the first attempt, the weight was adjusted by 4–10 kg and a minimum 5-minute rest was given before the next attempt. Only 3 trials were allowed per testing session. The test and retest trials were conducted on different days with a minimum of 48 hours between trials4. To reduce the margin of error in testing, the following strategies were adopted16: (a) standardized instructions were provided before the test, so the subject was aware of the entire routine involved with the data collection; (b) the subject was instructed on the technical execution of the exercises; (c) the researcher carefully monitored the position adopted during the exercises; (d) consistent verbal encouragement was given to motivate subjects for maximal repetition performance; (e) the additional loads used in the study were previously measured with a precision scale.
Experimental Sessions After determining the 8RM loads, three experimental protocols were applied in a randomized design, adopting 72h of recovery interval between the test sessions. Before testing, each participant performed
Arch Med Deporte 2017;34(3):145-150
Blood lactate concentration and strength performance between agonist-antagonist paired set, superset and traditional set training
a specific warm-up of 12 repetitions with 40% of 8RM loads for both exercises, adopting 2-minute rest interval among exercises, and the beginning of the testing session14: −− Traditional set training. Three sets were performed in seated row exercise followed by three sets of bench-press exercise, adopting 2-minute rest interval between sets and exercises. The session duration was approximately 10 minutes. −− Agonit-antagonist paired set. Three paired sets were performed between seated row and bench-press exercises in alternate manner, adopting 2-minute rest intervals between sets and exercises. The session duration was approximately 10 minutes. −− Supersets. Three paired sets were performed between seated row and bench-press exercises without rest interval between each set paired set (i.e. SR-BP). Then, a 150 seconds – rest interval was adopted before the next paired set. The session duration was approximately 5 minutes. The OMNI-Res17 scale was adopted to record the RPE after each set and exercise for all protocols. All sets and exercises was performed until concentric failure with 8RM loads. The fatigue index, commonly defined as the drop in strength and power during a training session, was estimated for each exercise in both orders using the formula proposed by Dipla et al18: FI = (third set/first set) × 100; where a higher percentage value (%) indicates a superior fatigue resistance.
Blood lactate After cleansing the site with 70% alcohol, the ear lobe was punctured using a disposable lancet (Accu-check Safe-T-Pro Uno®). The first drop of blood was discarded to avoid contamination with sweat and then a small blood sample was collected (25 ll) before exercise (rest for at least 15 min). Blood sampling was performed after each protocol, at the following times: (a) immediately upon completion (PRE), (b) 3 min (P3), and (c) 5 min (P5) after completion. The samples were placed in labeled microtubules (Eppendorf ) containing 50 ll of sodium fluoride solution [1%], and stored at approximately 4°C for 30 min and subsequently placed in a refrigerator. All samples were analyzed using the Accutrend® (Roche)19.
Statistical analysis Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS software version 20.0 (Chicago, IL, USA). The statistical analysis was initially performed using the normal Shapiro-Wilk test and homocedasticity test (Bartlett criterion). All variables were normally distributed and homocedasticity. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC = (MSb– MSw)/[MSb + (k-1) MSw) was calculated to verify the test and retest reproducibility of 8 RM loads determination. Two-way ANOVA for repeated measures followed by post hoc Bonferroni test was applied to determine whether there was a significant difference or interaction between the type of training (TS, PS and SS) and sets1-3 for repetition performance during seated row and bench press exercises. One-way ANOVA for repeated measures followed by post hoc Bonferroni was applied to verify if there was significant difference between lactate levels and fatigue index between protocols over the time points recorded. Friedman non-parametric test was applied to compare the rating of perceived exertion between protocols and sets for each exercise. The value of p
